If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Meh..... it would have to be multiple emp blasts over various areas to take us down imho...

All of the grids in the U.S. are connected together except for the Texas grid. With how outdated our grid is, and with poor safety mechanisms it would not be difficult for an EMP blast to cause a daisy chain reaction which would take out a large portion of our grid.

I have a source in the power distribution industry and this person tells me our grid is in worse shape than what most people realize.

I'm talking about taking down the entire Country. Imho it would take numerous emps to do it was my point. Yes 1 could hurt us but I doubt 1 could cripple the entire Country and render us completely incapable...

"The First Gay President", L'dMAO!! "Peace can ONLY be achieved through SUPERIOR FIREPOWER, STOMPING LIBS and CARPETBOMBING"!!

My reference earlier in this thread of Ohio was from previous research I had done that stated a single EMP blast over Ohio would take a rather large portion of the power grid of this country down. In the areas with no power, pure chaos would ensue within just a couple of days at most. That chaos would strain our remaining resources (troops sent in to keep the peace, supplies sent in from areas that do have power, ect.) and would make it easier (not easy though) for a country to gain the upper hand on us.

They don't have to hit the whole system, they only have to take out a good chunk of our economic power. Permanently taking down the western states, the eastern states, or the heartland would cripple our economy and cause untold millions of deaths; even individually. If they can get a central hit to take out 80% of the continental US, the US would be hanging by a thread: near zero actual industry, no fuel, no power, little communication, and not enough resources to take care of anything except a small minority of the population in cities. Canada couldn't help us because 80% of their population would be caught in the blast. Mexico would be of little help, either.

You don't need multiple though, you just need to take out enough that it's impossible to replace in 3 to 6 months. Of the region affected, you'd be looking at a 75%+ mortality rate. Do it in November and it becomes a domino effect ten-fold. Would we be completely incapable? Of course not, but even hitting the low-population center may cause the loss of 30 million people and hundreds of billions if not trillions in GDP overnight. It would cripple the nation. Hitting the coasts, which would be easier, could see casualties over 100 million people (east coast is estimated at 112 million people, many in cities and completely unprepared for 3 months without support) and easily trillions in GDP loss. Even with recent gains, our economy would destabilize and the USD would tank. Could very well trigger mass exodus to another currency. The ensuing war would bankrupt us if we could even manage a decent response after trying to fix things (we're getting there all by ourselves as-is).

Would the acting nation survive? Of course not. The majority, if not all, of our military and government targets are hardened. Second strike subs would pave the source with spite and retribution of biblical purportions and make sure it glowed in the dark as a reminder of why you don't launch nukes at a world superpower. But anything's game beyond that. We might nuke everyone. We might kick off WWIII. Who knows at that point? Wounded animals are unpredictable.

The US as a nation would survive, but it would look nothing like it does today. The change would make 9/11 look like a slight change in policy.